Bomb shell suit filed in Richmond re NoVa Armory

NoVa Armory has been blatantly attacked, discredited, defamed, and accused of criminal acts by members of our legislature (on official stationery) and others. A suit has been filed to seek compensation (triple damages requested).

Read the background thread here.


This will make major ripples in the pond and I suspect more than a little puckering of nether regions. This is not a shot across their bow, that had already been done. This is a close range broadside from a Man O' War.

I had heard that a civil suit might be filed and sure enough, when I searched the Richmond Circuit Court filings (available online now), there is was = City of Richmond Circuit Court, CL16001861-00
https://rbfi.io/dl.php?key=/ZQca/BroadstonevDoeetal.pdf

Save the above file in total or you can get your own copy from the Richmond Circuit Court - 17 pages at $0.50/page

Just read complaint in total. Wish I could be there for hearing, sounds like a good one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

This should be good.

Holy cow !!

Grapeshot said:

NoVa Armory has been blatantly attacked, discredited, defamed, and accused of criminal acts by members of our legislature (on official stationery) and others. A suit has been filed to seek compensation (triple damages requested).

Read the background thread here.


This will make major ripples in the pond and I suspect more than a little puckering of nether regions. This is not a shot across their bow, that had already been done. This is a close range broadside from a Man O' War.

I had heard that a civil suit might be filed and sure enough, when I searched the Richmond Circuit Court filings (available online now), there is was = City of Richmond Circuit Court, CL16001861-00
https://rbfi.io/dl.php?key=/ZQca/BroadstonevDoeetal.pdf

Save the above file in total or you can get your own copy from the Richmond Circuit Court - 17 pages at $0.50/page

Click to expand...

NOVA Armory is asking for a judgement against each of 64 defendants in the amount of $2,101,441.14 !!! ; plus legal costs. I hope they are successful in proving malfeasance, it appears cut and dried.

Is there a good way to keep abreast of progress in this case?

~Whitney

Whitney said:

NOVA Armory is asking for a judgement against each of 64 defendants in the amount of $2,101,441.14 !!! ; plus legal costs. I hope they are successful in proving malfeasance, it appears cut and dried.

Is there a good way to keep abreast of progress in this case?

~Whitney

Click to expand...

stay tuned to this channel. also, case status information can be obtained here: Va. Sup. Ct. website - choose the "case information" tab on the menu on the left side of the screen.

If only they'd stopped at mere expressions of opinion; Or if they'd stopped when asked, or when threatened with civil legal action... Much of the buzz this afternoon and evening has been about the defendants' right to free speech under the First Amendment - and ignoring the fact that the store isn't a governmental entity attempting to quell free speech, their defense of their actions is analogous to someone thinking that just because the Second Amendment recognizes his right to carry a gun, that he'd be justified in pulling it out and shooting someone just because he didn't like them. And the rhetoric they're using isn't special "anti-gun-shop" rhetoric - they figure anyone or anything they don't happen to like is evil and ought to be extinguished - so what if it were a shoe store run by black folks, Jews, Puerto-Ricans, or gays? And in fact, some of the rhetoric used in this case has expressed precisely this kind of fear, that people from the other side of the Anacostia River will be drawn to lilly-white Lyon Park on the metro to get illegal guns from this upscale gunshop. They think their notions of what they like and what they don't ought to rule other peoples' lives. Intolerance at its worst. These people are NOT "liberals".

Pennzoil won a lot of money ($10 billion in 1985) from Texaco using that term 'Tortious Interference'...UTexas football is played on the atty Joe Jamail football field in Austin...

HPmatt said:

Pennzoil won a lot of money ($10 billion in 1985) from Texaco using that term 'Tortious Interference'...UTexas football is played on the atty Joe Jamail football field in Austin...

Click to expand...

Shssssh - you'll scare the people who just want to protect the way they live in their neighborhood.

These idiot legislators think that their speech and debate clause will save them --- ROFL !

That will be a defense I'm certain of it. But it will fail. Its their only defense really.

God Bless America and big mouth legislators !

Another media report on this.

http://patriotoutdoornews.com/16718...ness?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&u

I just checked the court website to see if there has been any progress on this. So far there is nothing to indicate any movement at all. Anyone care to comment, or are things under wraps at present?

This is exactly how to respond to the various commie mommies that attack us....ask them "are you saying that I [give name], are guilty of murder or attempted murder?" Then when the idiot mommie answers yes...file a lawsuit.

All these mommies will go back into the woodwork .....

SAvage410 said:

I just checked the court website to see if there has been any progress on this. So far there is nothing to indicate any movement at all. Anyone care to comment, or are things under wraps at present?

Click to expand...

Suspect that there is a lot going on in the background, but not available for public release.

Grapeshot said:

Suspect that there is a lot going on in the background, but not available for public release.

Click to expand...

I would guess not ... maybe discovery is underway (likely). Won't see any of that unless a party wishes to file a notice with the court (I sometimes do this).

davidmcbeth said:

I would guess not ... maybe discovery is underway (likely). Won't see any of that unless a party wishes to file a notice with the court (I sometimes do this).

Click to expand...

Discovery most certainly is not underway. All that has happened is that the complaint has been filed. Next, it needs to be served on each of the defendants and each has the opportunity to respond to the complaint. The case detail doesn't show anyone as being served yet, nor any responses to the complaint. I don't know the exact time frames allowed for each, but the clock for responding to the suit starts when each defendant is properly served, and is often at least 21 days. As the suit was only filed on April 18, even if all defendants were served that day, they would have until at least this coming Monday to respond.

There will also likely be some motions for limited discovery and/or subpoenas to identify the Doe defendants in order to serve them, but there's no record of that in the online system yet.

Once a complaint is filed, discovery can beeegin. But its just at the beginning stages.

It can take years and years and years .... if ya want true justice, going to the gov't isn't going to get you it.

davidmcbeth said:

Once a complaint is filed, discovery can beeegin. But its just at the beginning stages.

It can take years and years and years .... if ya want true justice, going to the gov't isn't going to get you it.

Click to expand...

Discovery may be made upon the plaintiff after the case is commenced ("once a complaint is filed..." - and then the party issuing discovery waives service of process, so that never happens), but only upon any other party after service of process upon that party. Discovery is often limited by a scheduling order, and has to be completed usually by thirty days prior to trial. Cases lasting years and years are very unusual, though they do happen; generally in cases involving very complex litigation or where access to the court is very limited (I had a case recently in which every judge in the circuit had recused himself, and the substitute judge appointed by the Va. Sup. Ct. had health problems).

user said:

--snipped--(I had a case recently in which every judge in the circuit had recused himself, and the substitute judge appointed by the Va. Sup. Ct. had health problems).

Click to expand...

How convenient...for somebody.

Resolution?

In what PVC characterized as a "stealth" move, there is a hearing tonight (2016-05-11) at the Arlington Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development to attempt to close down the store by having the store's Certificate of Occupancy revoked or modified in some fashion. For those interested in attending, the hearing will be held at 19:00 hours. The address is:

2100 Clarendon Blvd.
3rd Floor Board of Supervisor's room
Arlington, VA

The word "stealth" was used since no government official bothered to notify either NOVA Armory or their landlord of the meeting.

Hope to see some of you there.

SAvage410 said:

In what PVC characterized as a "stealth" move, there is a hearing tonight (2016-05-11) at the Arlington Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development to attempt to close down the store by having the store's Certificate of Occupancy revoked or modified in some fashion. For those interested in attending, the hearing will be held at 19:00 hours. The address is:

2100 Clarendon Blvd.
3rd Floor Board of Supervisor's room
Arlington, VA

The word "stealth" was used since no government official bothered to notify either NOVA Armory or their landlord of the meeting.

Hope to see some of you there.

Click to expand...

I would hope the NOVA attorney would go before the Judge and amend their lawsuit to add names of the individuals leading this Department to their lawsuit, as well as perhaps a TRO to boot.

Nightmare said:

There is no Open Meetings Law notice requirement?

§ 2.2-3707. Meetings to be public; notice of meetings; recordings; minutes.
Bills amending this Section
A. All meetings of public bodies shall be open, except as provided in §§ 2.2-3707.01 and 2.2-3711.
[ ... ]
D. Notice, reasonable under the circumstance, of special or emergency meetings shall be given contemporaneously with the notice provided members of the public body conducting the meeting.

Click to expand...

Except that paragraph C requires notification of all public bodies which would include Zoning Board

§ 2.2-3707. Meetings to be public; notice of meetings; recordings; minutes.

C. Every public body shall give notice of the date, time, and location of its meetings by placing
the notice in a prominent public location at which notices are regularly posted and in the office
of the clerk of the public body, or in the case of a public body that has no clerk, in the office of
the chief administrator. All state public bodies subject to the provisions of this chapter shall also
post notice of their meetings on their websites and on the electronic calendar maintained by the
Virginia Information Technologies Agency commonly known as the Commonwealth Calendar.
Publication of meeting notices by electronic means by other public bodies shall be encouraged.
The notice shall be posted at least three working days prior to the meeting. Notices for meetings
of state public bodies on which there is at least one member appointed by the Governor shall
state whether or not public comment will be received at the meeting and, if so, the approximate
point during the meeting when public comment will be received.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk